3 ms·

What you're describing is not really atheism. Atheism is not a positive statement about anything, it's a lack of religion/belief in gods. I don't know if there

by Nursie 4y ago

What you're describing is not really atheism. Atheism is not a positive statement about anything, it's a lack of religion/belief in gods. I don't know if there's anything for us after death, but I have no good reason to think that there is. My lack of belief in an afterlife (or afterlives) is a functional assumption based on available evidence rather than an assertion of fact.

GuB-42 4y ago
Positive atheism is a thing. It is the strongest form of atheism, where one believes that no god exists. It contrasts with negative atheism, where one does not believe that god exists. There are other forms of atheism, like people like very young children who are not aware of the concept of god and therefore can't be believers, people who want to stay out of any kind of religious belief, etc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
- raydiatian 4y ago
  > like people like very young children who are not aware of the concept of god This is so absurdly profound. I remember being like 4 years old and taught about god. My first distinction was “I have no idea what you’re talking about, man with white beard in the clouds? Show me.” Wonder who has gone the longest without being exposed to religion.
- Nursie 4y ago
  It’s a vanishingly rare thing though, AFAICT.
raydiatian 4y ago
> My lack of belief in an afterlife (or afterlives) is a functional assumption based on available evidence rather than an assertion of fact. There’s as much evidence supporting the theist’s belief in their afterlife as there is evidence supporting the atheist’s belief in a lack of an afterlife: none. Both are willful imaginations of what happens after death. One difference between theists and atheists is that atheists think science is on their side in this debate (the whole ‘lack of evidence’ argument), when it’s not, because physics is meant to measure this world[•], not “the next one”. Furthermore a lack of evidence is the weakest form of evidence to the contrary. In fact if anything, some theistic notions of heaven and hell seem to be closer approximations, given the end of life DMT flood and seeing your family in your fleeting moments, and anecdotal accounts of white lights, etc. How does one even experience a final moment? Can you ever truly die? These are all super metaphysical/philosophical questions. Of course, if we all die in nuclear hellfire, there are no pineal glands around to dump the DMT, and so reality is you may be right: the majority of our consciousnesses will literally just cease to exist. No pretty light show, just purgatorial nonbeing for all of nontime. Agnosticism gets it right by saying “the truth is I don’t have the answer and I’m smart enough to acknowledge that. I’ll know when I get there, I’m not trying to sell you anything.” Atheism is like like picking only the worst squares in Pascal’s wager, while agnosticism is telling Pascal to politely shove off altogether. Also, separate but related, Newton was trying to be closer to God when he invented/discovered mechanics. [•] Theist beliefs in mystical forces having physical interactions in this universe is a completely separate discussion, which I highly doubt, but then again we don’t have an answer for how to measure dark matter, and String theorists are allowed to pedal their observationless theories.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > There’s as much evidence supporting the theist’s belief in their afterlife as there is evidence supporting the atheist’s belief in a lack of an afterlife: none. I agree, but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon seriously. > a lack of evidence is the weakest form of evidence to the contrary I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary, but there is as much evidence for an afterlife as there is for fire-breathing dragons, yet I am not required to declare agnosticism or a fence-sitting position on that front. Instead I am permitted to say “I don’t believe in those absent evidence, and I will happily change my mind when some is found” > Agnosticism gets it right ... As an agnostic atheist, I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. Agnosticism and atheism are two separate axes. One is a declaration of knowledge (there's no evidence, so I am agnostic) the other of belief (there's no evidence so I have no belief either).
  - raydiatian 4y ago
    > but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon. This is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty. If you don’t know how far you have to go to know definitively, this is a dangerous assumption. The history of physics is littered with false assumptions of “finally having complete knowledge” only to find out the model was incomplete: geocentrism, Newtonian mechanics, Ultraviolet catastrophe leading to modern QM, Standard model. How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes, to confirm that we know how big the search space is and that it is empty? No thanks, not for me, not yet at least. > I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife, you are arguing the lack of evidence of an afterlife supports your belief that there is no afterlife. Although frankly, you can have this one, I don’t particularly care. > agnostic atheist This is by definition, an oxymoron Atheists believe there are no gods. [1] Agnostics believe that there’s no telling whether god exists or not. [2] > I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. There’s no need to be condescending, especially if you’re going to get definitions wrong. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism I didn’t write these definitions, so just keep in mind it’s more than just me disagreeing with you.

by Nursie 4y ago

GuB-42 4y ago

Positive atheism is a thing. It is the strongest form of atheism, where one believes that no god exists. It contrasts with negative atheism, where one does not believe that god exists. There are other forms of atheism, like people like very young children who are not aware of the concept of god and therefore can't be believers, people who want to stay out of any kind of religious belief, etc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

raydiatian 4y ago
> like people like very young children who are not aware of the concept of god This is so absurdly profound. I remember being like 4 years old and taught about god. My first distinction was “I have no idea what you’re talking about, man with white beard in the clouds? Show me.” Wonder who has gone the longest without being exposed to religion.
Nursie 4y ago
It’s a vanishingly rare thing though, AFAICT.

raydiatian 4y ago

> My lack of belief in an afterlife (or afterlives) is a functional assumption based on available evidence rather than an assertion of fact. There’s as much evidence supporting the theist’s belief in their afterlife as there is evidence supporting the atheist’s belief in a lack of an afterlife: none. Both are willful imaginations of what happens after death. One difference between theists and atheists is that atheists think science is on their side in this debate (the whole ‘lack of evidence’ argument), when it’s not, because physics is meant to measure this world[•], not “the next one”. Furthermore a lack of evidence is the weakest form of evidence to the contrary. In fact if anything, some theistic notions of heaven and hell seem to be closer approximations, given the end of life DMT flood and seeing your family in your fleeting moments, and anecdotal accounts of white lights, etc. How does one even experience a final moment? Can you ever truly die? These are all super metaphysical/philosophical questions. Of course, if we all die in nuclear hellfire, there are no pineal glands around to dump the DMT, and so reality is you may be right: the majority of our consciousnesses will literally just cease to exist. No pretty light show, just purgatorial nonbeing for all of nontime. Agnosticism gets it right by saying “the truth is I don’t have the answer and I’m smart enough to acknowledge that. I’ll know when I get there, I’m not trying to sell you anything.” Atheism is like like picking only the worst squares in Pascal’s wager, while agnosticism is telling Pascal to politely shove off altogether. Also, separate but related, Newton was trying to be closer to God when he invented/discovered mechanics. [•] Theist beliefs in mystical forces having physical interactions in this universe is a completely separate discussion, which I highly doubt, but then again we don’t have an answer for how to measure dark matter, and String theorists are allowed to pedal their observationless theories.

Nursie 4y ago
> There’s as much evidence supporting the theist’s belief in their afterlife as there is evidence supporting the atheist’s belief in a lack of an afterlife: none. I agree, but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon seriously. > a lack of evidence is the weakest form of evidence to the contrary I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary, but there is as much evidence for an afterlife as there is for fire-breathing dragons, yet I am not required to declare agnosticism or a fence-sitting position on that front. Instead I am permitted to say “I don’t believe in those absent evidence, and I will happily change my mind when some is found” > Agnosticism gets it right ... As an agnostic atheist, I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. Agnosticism and atheism are two separate axes. One is a declaration of knowledge (there's no evidence, so I am agnostic) the other of belief (there's no evidence so I have no belief either).
- raydiatian 4y ago
  > but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon. This is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty. If you don’t know how far you have to go to know definitively, this is a dangerous assumption. The history of physics is littered with false assumptions of “finally having complete knowledge” only to find out the model was incomplete: geocentrism, Newtonian mechanics, Ultraviolet catastrophe leading to modern QM, Standard model. How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes, to confirm that we know how big the search space is and that it is empty? No thanks, not for me, not yet at least. > I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife, you are arguing the lack of evidence of an afterlife supports your belief that there is no afterlife. Although frankly, you can have this one, I don’t particularly care. > agnostic atheist This is by definition, an oxymoron Atheists believe there are no gods. [1] Agnostics believe that there’s no telling whether god exists or not. [2] > I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. There’s no need to be condescending, especially if you’re going to get definitions wrong. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism I didn’t write these definitions, so just keep in mind it’s more than just me disagreeing with you.